Calli was talking to Sarah and others, but some comments raise questions.

What do you believe? I'd say you're brainwashed because you were first taught evolution in school.

So you are saying that telling your stories to small children throughout life is not brainwashing while real education about evolutionary theory that is not very likely before college in our country is? Isn't it interesting that people who disagree with you because of scientific study are brainwashed?

Yes, I have studied evolution in detail (with an open mind) and have found it to be completely flawed.

Really? At what university did you get your degree? Which edition of "The Origin of Species" did you read? Have you read some of the books that discuss the fundamentals of evolutionary theory, such as "River Out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins, "The Theory of Evolution" by John Maynard Smith, or "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr? Or maybe you were a bit more ambitious and tackled "The Major Transitions in Evolution" by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, or even "The Structure of Evolutionary? Maybe by "detail" you mean that you actually read Stephen Jay Gould's tome, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory?" Perhaps you read "Science on Trial" by Douglas J. Futuyma, an excellent summary of evolutionary theory with specific answers to creationist arguments. Maybe you even used Futuyma's excellent text, "Evolutionary Biology" in your detailed study. However, if your detailed study included works by Morris, Brown, Gish, Hovind, Ham, Woodmorappe (Peczkis) and the like, you haven't studed evolutionary theory even a little. So exactly what did you cover in your study?

There is no proof for it and no missing links!

Science doesn't deal with proof and only creationists and journalists talk about missing links.

Most Christians do not accept evolution because they believe the entire Bible.Not just the parts that they want to believe.

Actually, no. Most Christians are actually theistic evolutionists. And that is speaking only of the U.S. If you go to other countries, even Canada, you will find that creationists become a small minority of even the Christian population. I give some links to some information from Gallup polls in the "the true debate" thread. Creationists tend to be older, less educated, and less affluent, among others (female, non-white). But I think that most important correlation is with education, probably in all cases.

And in fact, you also believe just the parts of the Bible that you want to believe. Do you believe that rabbits chew cud? Do grasshoppers have only 4 legs? Are bats birds? And tell me this, do you wear clothes made from two different fabrics? Perhaps a cotton/polyester or even a linen/cotton blend? You must, of course, be stoned to death for doing so. So says the Bible.

(And they studied it with an open mind.)

So people who have been told Bible stories since they were children, and told of how they will be damned to eternal punishment for even trivial and human failure, most especially any real doubt, studied anything with an open mind.

I found some Bible verses here clearly pointing out that not only is the Bile free from flaw, you cannot believe in only part of the Bible and be a true Christian.

I see. The Bible is free from flaw because the Bible says that it is free from flaw. How open minded!

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ALL scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

If you claim to have studied this stuff with an open mind, why aren't you aware that those words were written about 300 years before what you think is scripture was compiled? [snip]Meaningless justification of the Bible by quoting the Bible - circular logic.

fallingupwards:I'm not judging you.

Nonsense! You were too.

I'm trying to tell you that what you believe is flawed.

And that isn't judging? You know the truth? Your version of Christianity is the only true version. How foolish of me to not have known that. Fallingupwards recognizes that the Bible reflects the history of a people with their God and that those writings relate their mythology and legends as well as moral truth and civil law. I regard a claim that the Bible is some kind of "dictaphone" recording of the very words of God as foolish beyond belief.

You cannot simply think that by saying "God I believe you died for me" that you can get into heaven. It just doesn't work that way.

So you are saying that you are not saved by faith?

It just doesn't work that way. You have to ask God to FORGIVE you of your sins and blindly trust that ALL of his words are true. He doesn't want just part of your faith/love, he wants all of it!

Bizarre, to say the least. But of course, you are unable to recognize that much of the Bible is allegorical rather than literal. How sad that your faith is so weak. It seems to me that your concept of god is nothing more than superstition, whereas fallingupward is beginning to realize that God's work is beyond comprehension. And you won't see his work in a book - you have to go outside and look at it.

thistown:Read falllingupward's message because it applies to you too. Oh yeah, read all of the other verses too. (You know, the ones that say ALL scripture is God breathed, etc.)

Even the parts about the 4 legged grasshoppers and the rabbits that chew cud?

Nowhere in my posts did I say that you would rot in hell. I simply said that you cannot believe in only parts of the Bible (Well, obviously YOU can but I wont go there.)

We know. What the mythology of bronze age herdsmen says is more meaningful than anything you can actually see with your own eyes. Maybe you didn't actually mention hell, but you sure indicated that you are the judge of who is and is not a Christian.

I can't believe you guys are so defensive. I'm not insulting you, swearing at you, etc. Yet you act as if I am.

Well, as good as doing so. You are claiming that others who profess to be Christians are not, simply because they don't agree with you and how you wish to interpret the Bible. Your mind is small and unable to understand anything more than simple mythology. Those you insult have grander concepts.

You only want to believe in the parts of the Bible that benifit you and that is really sad.

Not sure what that means. It is possible to believe the Bible, the whole Bible, and still recognize that Hebrew mythology is not history.

It's no use debating with you guys because you don't listen.

And you don't think.

I listened to every arguement you offered me and they made no sense.

See. You don't think. It isn't as if you have some sort of logical answer. You just reject what was said. A pretty good indication that you are incapable of understanding (brainwashing?).

Just because the majority of you are evolution believing Christians doesn't mean that the majority of Christians in this world believe in evolution.

No, it doesn't. But on the other hand, creationists are a small minority among Christians.

There are no contradictions in the Bible, different people simply wrote them different ways. The events stay the same.

Then you haven't read the Bible?

As for Sarah, you can take as many philosophy/evolution classes as you like.

Evolution is not philosophy, it is science. I thought you said that you had studied it in detail?

It's not worth arguing with you 'cause you just don't listen.

And you do? Since you know the truth and everyone else is wrong, if your pontifications are not accepted without rational thought (the same consideration that you gave them), the whoever opposes you isn't worth the trouble. That is so "christian" of you.

I'm not a "Unitarian" "Universalist" "Catholic" "Protestant" "Presbeterian" etc. I don't belong to any "group" of Christians. So your statistics don't affect my view at all.

I see. So the ancient Christian idea of community is meaningless to you. That explains a lot.

Terah's lifespan.Acts 7:4 states Terah was dead when Abraham left Haran.According to Gen 11:26, Terah was 70 when Abraham wasborn and Abraham was 75 when he left Haran. Thereforehe lived 70 years (ie. his age when Abraham was born)plus 75 years (Abraham's age when he left Haran -Terah was dead at this time according to Acts 7:4) -145 years in total. However, Gen 11:32 states he lived205 years.

God promises Abraham the land of Canaan to live in -Gen 17:8God did not allow Abraham to live in the promised land- Acts 7:5, Heb 11:8,9,13

Solomon's reign.Acts 13:16-22 numbers the years from when the Hebrewsleft Egypt to David beginning his reign as 40(Wilderness) + 450 (Judges) + 40 (Saul) = 530 years.According to 1 Chron 29:27, David reigned 40 years, soSolomon became king (when David died) 530 + 40 years(of David's reign) = 570 years. However, 1 Kings 6:1states Solomon's 4th year of rule (when he began theTemple building) was 480 years after the Hebrews leftEgypt, ie. he began his rule 476 years after theHebrews left. In sum, there is a contradiction of 94years.

Saul inquired of God, but God did not answer him - 1Sam 28:6Saul died because he did not seek guidance from God - 1Chron 10:13,14

Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began his reign - 2Chron 36:9Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began his reign - 2Kings 24:8

The captain takes 5 men of the king's council - 2 Kings25:19The captain takes 7 men of the king's council -Jeremiah 52:25

Baasha dies and his son Ela begins his reign overIsrael - this was in the 26th year of king Asa of Judah- 1 Kings 16:6,8In the 36th year of Asa's reign, Baasha attacks Judah 2Chron 16:1NB. 2 Chron has Baasha still fighting 10 years after 1Kings says he died!

The infancy narratives.According to Luke 2:21-39, Jesus is taken to theJerusalem Temple eight days after he is born; thefamily then go up to Nazareth. In Matthew 2:14-23,after being born the family flee in Egypt and staythere until Herod dies; even on returning, they avoidJudea and go up to Nazareth.

Jesus began ministry after John the Baptist isimprisoned - Mark 1:14,15,17.Jesus's began ministry whilst John was free and beforeimprisoned - John 1:28-29, 3:25-30

It seems that 12 nested quotes are the limit for this board. That seems sufficient to me until someone quotes and quotes and quotes without closing a single one. Valient try, Sarah, but the previous thread fades off into nothing after the 12th unclosed quote. I can't even see your message.

Everybody makes mistakes, but shouldn't whoever posted that abomination at least go back and check the message? In this thread I made two similar errors (one a "quote" without a "/quote", the other a "/quote" without a "quote". Wouldn't it be nice if everyone at least checked the board to see if they have reduced it to trash?

If you can't fix it, then delete your message or replace it with "oops."

First off, just so you know so you can make your posts easier to read the first UBB code to make something be a quote is [ quote ], but the second should have and slash before it says "quote" like this [/ quote ] That will close your quote box.

No, I did not imply that you were going to rot in hell. I did imply that your belief system was flawed because you cannot simply believe part of the Bible and say that the rest is not true.

Actually one of the verses you quoted seemed to imply it, but if you say it isn't so, then I believe you.

What I mean by "benefited you" is that you only believe in the part about how Jesus came and died for your sins and now you can go to heaven because you asked him to be your savior.

Actually, you are assuming again. I believe any part of the Bible that does not have empirical proof against it. I cannot lie to myself intellectually so as a result I cannot believe something that my intellect says can't be true. Furthermore, under that logic I would do whatever I wanted, like I said before I follow all the laws of the Bible and live with as little sinning as possible. That does not "benefit" me. My problem is that I cannot follow the laws and believe that Genesis is literal.

You do not listen because you keep coming up with irrevelant statistics to proove your point. Just because "Unintarians" "Presbyterians" "Catholics" (--I wouldn't consider them Christian, but oh well) believe in evolution, it doesn't mean that the majority of Christians believe in evolution. That would be like me basing a study on the number of atheists against abortion on some statistics that I found off of a site on homosexual atheists. Not all atheists are homosexual (obviously). In the same way, not all Christians can be catagorized as easily as putting them into "church groups".

That is true, and I admitted that by saying that MOST did. And they were not irrelevant. You have argued so that it is not absolute evidence, and your point is well taken, but that does not make it irrelevant. Another thing to consider is that people who made those quotes and establish those religions policies are theological experts. They went to school for it. The fact that religious experts believe that Genesis is not literal is somewhat convincing evidence to realize that it is possible that it is not meant to be literal.

How is the Bible "blatently wrong"?

I said that in an above post but I will repeat it. At one point the Bible is describing some animals and it says that rabbits chew their cud (which they do not) and that grasshoppers have 4 legs (they have 6). So the Bible is blantantly wrong about those things which are scientific facts. This is evidence that the Bible is not always right about science.

Yes, most Christians belong to a denomination. But I know of MANY denominations which were missing from your statistics list.

Such as...

I have provided you with very much evidence (scriptures etc.) but you refuse to believe it. You have only provided swayed statistics and quoted every one of my posts.

I will believe it when I can't refute it or when you rerefute my refutation. Its called arguing. Whether I believe you is your job to fix YOU are supposed to convince me. If I ignored your posts and said I am right you are wrong. THAT would be not listening, but I have answered every point in your posts. And have given credit where credit is due for good points. So if we are going to discuss please stop whining that I am not listening to you and lets's discuss

I never assumed anything. I said that you had obviously been taught evolution and accepted it. (Am I right? Stop me if I'm wrong.)

But since I was a Creationist before, and an arguing creationist at that. I knew all the scientific arguments for Creationism, it has nothing to do with being braiinwashed. It was me using my God-given intellect to deduce what I find to be the truth because after all when you find the truth you find God.

You used to believe in the entire Bible until you decided to take philosophy and other classes which obviously swayed your point of view even more.

Philosophy has nothing to do with it, it was anthropology which is science. It was a detailed class on evolution which is why I know a literal Genesis can't be right,

I can tell that you are a very smart person from your posts (and probably heck of a lot older than me . But if you study the Bible like you have studied evolution and philosophy, you will realize that it is completely sound.

Is it now? Sorry, but it isn't. if you had read the entire Bible you would realize it isn't entirely sound. I gave examples above.

May I ask what is so wrong with believing a figurative Genesis. I believe Genesis, God Created the heavens and the Earth. I just dont think that it happened in six days. Perhaps we should take this to a more Biblical level...Biblically what is wrong with believing a figuratie Genesis??

God created animals and then man. Then he says, hey, while I'm at it why don't I make someone to take care of them. (Genisis 1:26) The next verse says,"Now the Lord God HAD FORMED (past tense) out of the ground all the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. He brought them to man to see what he would name them." No contradiction here.

Genesis 7[2]Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, (7:2 Or seven pairs ; also in verse)

Terah's lifespan.Acts 7:4 states Terah was dead when Abraham left Haran.According to Gen 11:26, Terah was 70 when Abraham wasborn and Abraham was 75 when he left Haran. Thereforehe lived 70 years (ie. his age when Abraham was born)plus 75 years (Abraham's age when he left Haran -Terah was dead at this time according to Acts 7:4) -145 years in total. However, Gen 11:32 states he lived205 years.

Does it tell you how long Terah had been dead when Abraham left?

[qote]God promises Abraham the land of Canaan to live in -Gen 17:8God did not allow Abraham to live in the promised land- Acts 7:5, Heb 11:8,9,13

Try reading the whole chapter in context. Verse six "God spoke to him in this way:'Your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,' God said,'and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.'

Genesis 46:27With the two sons [ 46:27 Hebrew; Septuagint [ the nine children ] ] who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob's family, which went to Egypt, were seventy [ 46:27 Hebrew (see also Exodus 1:5 and footnote); Septuagint (see also Acts 7:14) [ seventy-five ] ] in all.

Jacob was buried in a cave in Machpelah's field thatwas bought from Ephron the Hittite - Gen 50:13Jacob was buried in a tomb at Shechem bought from thesons of Hamor - Acts 7:15-16

That cave was a tomb that Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite, son of Hamor. Shechem did not buy the tomb, Shechem is where the tomb was. Verse 16 "Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in a tomb that ABRAHAM HAD BOUGHT from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money. (Check your references more closely next time.)

The Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for 430 years - Ex 2:40The Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for 400 years - Acts 7:6

There are only 25 verses in Exodus 2. Not 40. There are 40 verses in Exodus 12. (Just another one of the many errors in your sources.) Acts 7:6 says that they will be "enslaved and mistreated" for 400 years.

I don't know what version you are reading, but my Bible says that Numbers 25:9 says this: "but those who died in the plague numbered 24,00". Those verses are talking about completely seperate happenings.

God was telling us not to kill without a reason. For instance, I wouldn't just go kill you because I don't like you. There are times and places for killing, this was one of them. The people were worshipping false Gods, getting drunk, and building idols. Moses gave them a chance to repent and alot of them decided not to. So they were killed, plain and simple.

Solomon's reign.Acts 13:16-22 numbers the years from when the Hebrewsleft Egypt to David beginning his reign as 40(Wilderness) + 450 (Judges) + 40 (Saul) = 530 years.According to 1 Chron 29:27, David reigned 40 years, soSolomon became king (when David died) 530 + 40 years(of David's reign) = 570 years. However, 1 Kings 6:1states Solomon's 4th year of rule (when he began theTemple building) was 480 years after the Hebrews leftEgypt, ie. he began his rule 476 years after theHebrews left. In sum, there is a contradiction of 94years.

What don't you understand about the verse "ALL this took 450 years"? You said "to David BEGINNING his reign", yet you added 40 years of David's reign. Okay, why don't I give you a chance to rephrase this one and then we'll talk about it.

Saul inquired of God, but God did not answer him - 1Sam 28:6Saul died because he did not seek guidance from God - 1Chron 10:13,14

He inquired of God but gave up because he didn't feel like waiting for God's answer. He then had a medium (witch) help him talk to the long-dead Samuel. He died because he was "UNFAITHFUL TO THE LORD" and because he did not inquire God honestly and WAIT FOR HIS ANSWER. He had a witch help him instead.

Jesse had "seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him,'the Lord has not chosen these'. So he asked Jesse, 'Are these all the sons you have?' 'THERE IS STILL THE YOUNGEST,' Jesse answered, 'BUT HE IS TENDING SHEEP'. Jesse SHOWED SAMUEL SEVEN OF HIS SONS. The eighth was David who was busy tending the sheep.

I don't know what Bible you're getting your sources from but this is what my Bible says for 2 Sam. 8:4 "David captured a thousand of his chariots, SEVEN THOUSAND charioteers and twenty thousand foot soldiers."

I think I'll give you a chance to go through the rest of these verses and check them before I go through them all. It is a waste of my time to check verses which are improperly quoted in the first place.

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

Hares do not chew cud.

Leviticus 11:11-20 And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind, the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

Emphasis added

Bats are not birds.

Leviticus 11:21-22 Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those which have legs above their feet, with which to leap on the earth. Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind.

Well, I found this on a rabbit-breeder's website. I think this qualifies as "cud".

"Rabbits produce two kinds of waste. One is a soft pellet and covered with mucus. They eat this pellet and redigest at night. Yuck! But it is necessary."

Reference: http://www.hopperhome.com/rabbitstomach.htm#vomit

Bats are not birds

Until fairly recently, they were classified as birds or rodents. Mankind is still figuring out new things about different species. They grouped things back then in the best way that they could.

Grasshoppers have 6 legs not 4.

Locusts have six legs, crickets have six legs, and so do grasshoppers. The verse says "Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those which have LEGS ABOVE THEIR FEET, with which to leap on the earth." Locusts, crickets and grasshoppers have 4 "WALKING LEGS" AND 2 "JUMPING LEGS". (Check out the neato anatomies I found at the resources below!)

Now we're getting somewhere, this is how a debate should go answering every point directyly

I knew about the rabbit one because I have heard that argument before. The problem is that they have a word in Hebrew for dung, which is VERY different from cud, so it is still not entireley accurate. But I do see your point, I am kind of sitting on the fence on this one.

The bat one, I agree with you, but if God is all knowing couldn't he have inspired men to understand classification of species and called a Bat what it should be called???

The grasshopper one I did not know and Thank you very much for telling me about it.

The bat one, I agree with you, but if God is all knowing couldn't he have inspired men to understand classification of species and called a Bat what it should be called???

Maybe God didn't think that it was necessary to tell man that bats were mammals. Maybe all that they needed to know was that they shouldn't eat those certain "flying animals". Just because God CAN do something doesn't mean that he SHOULD do it. Here's an example for you: Let's say your children (if you ever have children) find some medicine in the bathroom cabinet that would make them very sick. Of course you are not going to say,"Don't eat these medicinces because they're laxatives, and don't eat these ones because they're pain relievers, and..." No, of course not! That's too much for little children to understand. They have barely just learned that these "medicines" are bad stuff. You would simply tell them,"Never eat the medicine in this cabinet". Short and simple. Young children are easily confused, and with the level of knowledge that the people in Bible times possessed, they can easily be thought of as "little children" in God's eyes.

Quote from Guest at 9:04 PM on January 25, 2003 :Maybe God didn't think that it was necessary to tell man that bats were mammals. Maybe all that they needed to know was that they shouldn't eat those certain "flying animals". Just because God CAN do something doesn't mean that he SHOULD do it. Here's an example for you: Let's say your children (if you ever have children) find some medicine in the bathroom cabinet that would make them very sick. Of course you are not going to say,"Don't eat these medicinces because they're laxatives, and don't eat these ones because they're pain relievers, and..." No, of course not! That's too much for little children to understand. They have barely just learned that these "medicines" are bad stuff. You would simply tell them,"Never eat the medicine in this cabinet". Short and simple. Young children are easily confused, and with the level of knowledge that the people in Bible times possessed, they can easily be thought of as "little children" in God's eyes.

Ahhh...exactly my point. If we were little children, was God going to explain macroevolution to man. Was he going to explain how things were made and how long it took. No, because man couldn't have understood the concepts of evolution, and not only couldn't have understood billions of years, but couldn't have written about it, because they didn't even have a word for it. So what would God do? He would explain it to them in a manner that was relevant to them. He would tell them that He made the world. He would tell them about how important man is to him. He would tell them about making many different kinds of animals. But He would not start telling them about how originally He made microorganisms, and then he guided those microorganisms to evolve to something larger....and on and on. He wouldn't try to do that. He simply got his point across, I made everything. I was that it was good and I kept it. As far as the six days, God was just getting another point across. He wanted people to dedicate a day to him. Not an epoch. So He gave it in figurative terms of "days" so that if He worked six days and rested the seventh so should we.

I'm a member! Yeah! No more "you can't edit your post because it's not yours"! Yeeaaahhh!

Anyhow...

Ahhh...exactly my point. If we were little children, was God going to explain macroevolution to man. Was he going to explain how things were made and how long it took. No, because man couldn't have understood the concepts of evolution, and not only couldn't have understood billions of years, but couldn't have written about it, because they didn't even have a word for it. So what would God do? He would explain it to them in a manner that was relevant to them. He would tell them that He made the world. He would tell them about how important man is to him. He would tell them about making many different kinds of animals. But He would not start telling them about how originally He made microorganisms, and then he guided those microorganisms to evolve to something larger....and on and on. He wouldn't try to do that. He simply got his point across, I made everything. I was that it was good and I kept it. As far as the six days, God was just getting another point across. He wanted people to dedicate a day to him. Not an epoch. So He gave it in figurative terms of "days" so that if He worked six days and rested the seventh so should we.

Now you are making assumptions. I said God did not tell them the different categories of animals, I did not say that God deliberately kept information from them. Everything that is in the Bible tells us about creation. For petes sake, CREATION TELLS US ABOUT CREATION! There is no possible way that we "evolved" from microorganisms. Do you know how small the chances are that that happened?! They're barely chances at all at this point. It says that God created man on the sixth day. Not over millions of years.

-------Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." -Albert Einstein

Exactly! And creation tells us that it didn't happen as the Bible depicts. How sad that you still cling to the mythology of nomadic herdsmen as science.

By the way, I asked you some questions about your detailed study of evolution (with an open mind). You seem to have ignored them. Now you have branched off into declarations about probability. Please add your qualifications to discuss that topic. You studied probability and statistics where?

I certainly hope that you aren't parroting some creationist site. But it sounds to me like "I just can't believe . . ." as an argument. Unless you know what you are talking about, who cares what you can't believe?

Maybe God didn't think that it was necessary to tell man that bats were mammals.

But why did He find it necessary to tell man that bats are birds? It doesn't make sense. The point is that the Bible is wrong and rationalization doesn't fix it. You are claiming that the Bible is without error except where God lied.